SCHOOL DISTRICT IS "COWARDLY AND ARROGANT," ATTORNEY SAYS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: [Name Removed]

March 6, 2007

COURT RULING ON DAVIS SCHOOL DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL BOUNDARY

ISSUE DEMONSTRATES THAT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS “COWARDLY AND

ARROGANT,” ATTORNEY SAYS

Judge Michael G. Allphin of the Second Judicial District Court in Davis County issued a

ruling today that dismissed the lawsuit brought by a group of parents and neighbors in

Davis County against the Davis School District that sought a permanent injunction

against the District from further violating the Utah Open and Public Meeting Act. In it,

the court agreed that the District had violated the law, but said that the case was now

“moot” in light of the District’s actions in hiring a consultant whose recommendations on

high school boundaries were adopted by the District in January.

“The judge’s ruling proves how cowardly and arrogant the Davis School District has

been in this case,” said Randall K. Edwards, lawyer for the group that brought the suit.

“Instead of taking a chance that they would actually be forced to listen to the public in an

open and public forum, the District first hired a hand-picked ‘consultant’ – a former

Davis School District superintendent – to make the boundary decisions behind closed

doors, and then begged the court to delay a hearing on the lawsuit until the boundaries

had been changed. The District could then claim that there was ‘no harm, no foul,’

because they had rushed a final decision on the high school boundaries before the case

could finally be heard in court. Not once in the whole process was any member of the

general public ever allowed to speak to the ‘consultant.’ It was a charade from start to

finish.”

The court’s ruling affirmed that the decision issued last November to stop the school

board from considering recommendations from closed “boundary committee” meetings

was “justified, based upon the facts and the law,” and, in rendering its ruling that the case

was now moot, considered that the school board had been forced to issue an internal

directive to adhere strictly to that earlier order.

Edwards remarked, “It’s hard to tell whether the District will have learned anything from

this lawsuit. While it’s true that the board had to face the fact that it was acting in

violation of the law, it’s also true that the board dealt with that by continuing to shut the

public out of the decision-making process, all the time desperately delaying a day of

reckoning before the court. It is the height of arrogance for the District to try to avoid its

responsibilities to listen to the public in a public forum.”

Edwards added, “In my opinion, the school board has shot itself in the foot on this one.

After its shameful conduct in this case, I don’t think anybody trusts the District to be

responsive to its constituents. Instead, the board seems intent on avoiding any

meaningful input from the public it has been elected to serve. Who can believe them

now?”

-end-